Patel v. Alphabet Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 RAJ PATEL, Case No. 23-cv-03647-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE 9 v. UNDER SEAL 10 ALPHABET INC., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Raj Patel’s renewed Motion to File Under Seal his Fourth 14 Amended Complaint, ECF No. 23-5; all previous versions of his complaint, ECF Nos. 1, 12–13, 15 18, 21; and his Motion to Reconsider, ECF No. 15. ECF No. 23. The Court previously denied 16 without prejudice Patel’s Motion to File Under Seal his Third Amended Complaint, the previous 17 versions, and his Motion to Reconsider because Patel failed to demonstrate compelling reasons to 18 seal all or part of his pleadings and his request was not narrowly tailored. ECF No. 22. 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 23 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 24 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 25 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 26 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 27 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 1 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 2 || warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 3 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 4 || requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 5 || Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 6 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 7 Because a complaint is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the Court 8 || will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. See Rieckborn v. Velti PLC, No. 13-CV-03889- 9 || WHO, 2014 WL 4964313, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) (collecting cases applying the 10 || compelling reasons standard to motions to seal a complaint). 11 Patel has failed to demonstrate compelling reasons to seal any portion of his pleadings and 12 || Motion to Reconsider. Patel argues that his requested redactions contain trade secrets and 5 13 confidential information that could prejudice Patel. ECF No. 23-1 at 8-16. However, none of 14 what Patel seeks to seal is confidential information, Patel has not alleged any trade secrets, and 3 15 Patel has failed to explain how he would be prejudiced or why the alleged prejudice meets the 16 || compelling reasons standard. As such, the Court DENIES Patel’s Motion to File Under Seal. 3 17 ECF No. 23. Patel is directed to file his Fourth Amended Complaint on the public docket or 18 amend his complaint to exclude any matters he chooses not to file on the public record no later 19 than September 11, 2023. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: September 6, 2023 24 [ t : / BETH LABSON FREEMAN 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28